Become a Fan

October 30, 2014

Seven Facts about Aurora, CO's breed ban before next week's vote

Next week, voters in Aurora, CO will have the opportunity to repeal the city's 9 year old breed ban.

The city has discussed the potential repeal multiple times since the law's inception and finally decided to take the repeal idea to the voters. I personally think it's up-hill battle to win a repeal via a public vote, generally because if a ban is in place, most of the residents have had very little personal interaction with the banned breeds and thus, are more apt to have to rely on the media coverage as the basis for their opinions. To this point, the area media has not been terribly accurate in their reporting.

So with that, here are 7 facts that voters in Aurora need to know prior to heading to the polls.

#1) All national organizations with expertise in dog behavior support repealing breed bans.

Every. Single. One. These organizations of professionals are basing their reputations on their opposition to breed-specific laws. And these organizations are very diverse, and include the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the National Animal Control Association (NACA), American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), the American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the American Bar Association all agree that laws targeting breeds are ineffective and should be replaced with laws targeting aggressive dogs based on their behavior, not their breed.

#2) The 9 year old breed ban has NOT been effective at improving public safety

In fact, the number of bites in Aurora has actually increased by 77% since the law was put into effect and the law seemed reverse what was a trend of decreasing dog bites and bites immediately began trending upward after the law passed. In fact, the four highest years in total dog bites occurred AFTER the law was enacted to supposedly improve public safety. Here are the raw numbers from 2003-2013:

Year Total Bites Bites by targeted breeds Bites by other breeds

2003 213 28 185

2004 211 33 178

2005 137 27 110

Ordinance Passed October 24, 2005

2006 137 8 129

2007 172 15 157

2008 224 8 216

2009 229 9 220

2010 194 6 188

2011 252 9 243

2012 241 6 235

2013 243 10 233

The total number of bite incidents has increased 77% since the passing of the ordinance back in 2006.

It's also worth noting that the breed ban was set at addresssing only about 15% of the dog bites in Aurora -- and never even attempted to address 85% of the cases.

#3) In spite of the total bite data being easily available via Freedom of Information Act, not one single media outlet in the Denver/Aurora area has decided to publish it.

#4) What the ordinance has done is lead to the mass slaughter of more than 1,100 dogs that look like pit bulls - at taxpayer expense.

According to a memo produced by Aurora Animal Care PR Specialist Cheryl Conway, dated January 27th, 636 pit bulls were killed in 2006 -- the first year after the ban was passed. 173 were killed in 2007 and roughly 100 every year since then.

The ordinance has led to the direct killing of more than 1,000 family pets since it was enacted. An article from the Aurora Sentinel put the death tally at 1,158 nearly a year ago. While the rest of the nation is working hard to save healthy, treatable dogs, the city of Aurora is using taxpayer money to round them up and kill them.

#5) Aurora City Council members that support the law have acknowledged that the law isn't about improved public safety and is not rooted in factual information.

"Oh, you bet if I could, I would ban the owners too. By banning the dogs, we lose the violent behavior that comes with the owners." She then went on to say that breed bans make people feel safer. "It's not about a fact, it's about a feeling."

In saying this, she acknowledges that she is racist, or at the very least classist, vs the stereotypes of people she THINKS own pit bulls. Never mind that pit bulls are among the most popular breeds of dogs in the country, and owned by people of all races, income levels, and professions including lawyers, academics, and young professionals.

Markert's reactions should be extremely frightening to anyone who believes in fact-based decision-making and policies not designed to target people by perceived race or class.

#6) The expense of managing the ordinance has been substantial, including substantial legal fees that are being paid with taxpayer funds.

In an email from Assistant City Attorney Julie Heckman from February 2014 notes that the city has suffered many legal challenges, to which they have suffered substantial losses.

In the ADA case, Grider, Belcher and Piltz vs the City of Denver & Aurora, the city of Aurora endured more than $130,000 in legal fees associated with defending the law (in a case which they eventually lost).

They also have been challenged in their breed identification of more than 100 dogs -- and ended up being wrong on the the breed ID in 77% of the cases. Again, all at taxpayer expense.

#7) City officials have already acknowledged that the original breed ban was a failure.

The original law banned 10 different breeds of dogs back in 2006. However, in April 2011, the council voted to remove 7 breeds from the banned breeds list due to their struggles in enforcing the law.

The law is a failure. It's failed in public safety. It's cost innocent pets their lives. It's cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the council members who support the law acknowledge it's not rooted in fact, and only makes people feel better. And the law has no professional support.

Voters in Aurora, I urge you to vote to repeal the city's breed ban on Tuesday. The rest of the nation is watching.

One of our councilmembers said something very similar to what Aurora's Molly Merkert said. A Reynoldsburg City Councilman stated," It isn't about the dogs, it is about the people that own the dogs." Hard to believe people that makes statements like these are voted into office.

Good luck Nancy. I hope this gets repealed but I am always pessimistic when voters are asked to overturn BSL. Most people just want to be safe, and communities are safe whether or not BSL in in place or not. So they're not going to overturn what is "working". Witness the Miami vote from two years ago.

However, I know there has been a lot of press about this issue in Aurora. More discussion and information is generally good for the anti-BSL advocates. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised by the voting results.

Thank you as usual Brent. This is so very timely for me as I've just recently been interviewed by a local newspaper reporter for an article he is doing here in Portland Oregon about pit bulls in response to three recent alleged pit bull related incidents. I have shared your blog with him in the hope that he will find some of the information useful in the writing of the article.

I'm pessimistic as well... I think over 40% should be considered a moral victory. I have to admit - I'm kind of a bit discouraged as to the quality of the advocacy - I know ColoRADogs is working their butts off, but I'm kind of wondering why this is the first I've seen the updated statistics. This should be point #1,#2 and #3 - the ban has failed, instead of getting into the weeds with the nuances of dog breed identification and behavior. It's been fairly obvious that Aurora ACC has been selectively describing the situation with their "pit bull bites" are down narrative, and without the full data to counter, that's what seems to be getting out.

I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my life? This woman is proud of basing public policy that impacts thousands of people solely on feelings?

Does she think that violent crime is stopped by making potential victims feeling safer, or by education and laws and community/police action?

Dog bites are not feelings; they are facts. The euthanasia of dogs because of their appearance rather than their behavior, i.e. the numbers and incidences, are facts. Both sides of this issue should rely on facts as well as feelings.

Here's hoping for some sanity from the voters in Colorado (all dogs to be judged by their behavior rather than appearance/breed); and continued responsible behavior in all dog owners (well, I can hope).

1) Aurora Sentinel editorialized against repeal, comparing pit bulls to cheetahs and lions
2) Denver Post editorialized against repeal
3) every local media story about the repeal quoted Dogsbite.. but NO local citizens against repeal (apparently they couldn't find any)
4) one station stated "BSL is increasing across the country" and when questioned, cited Animal Control as the source (the real source is Dogsbite manipulated figures; the actual trend of course is overwhelmingly to repeal BSL)
5) a few days before deadline for ballot return (Colorado is an all mail-in ballot state, so it's not a "polls close" matter), media reported on a "pit bull leaps off balcony to kill another dog", though no one other than unnamed witnesses called the dog a pit bull ... and of course the station has NEVER reported on any other dog-kills-dog story and of course they didn't bother to find out how many such incidents occur. One local advocate reported asking a witness who said the dog did not in fact jump off the balcony)

Conclusion: evidence suggests local media is not interested in reporting facts, but only in playing stenographer to anti-pit bull forces and contributing to hatred and hysteria

No surprise that the ban is staying, see my above comments. Nancy and other advocates did a lot of work, and I'm pleasantly surprised to see 33% of citizens voted Yes.

People want to feel safe, and as Brent always says when he posts about a bite study or a DBRF, we are generally safe from dog bites whether we live in a community with BSL or without it. So asking the citizenry to change the status quo is very very very hard. The good news is that I would not expect communities that don't have BSL to vote to put it in, and far more communities do not have pit bull bans than do. Does anybody think that Fort Collins would have voted 70% in favor of instituting a pit bull ban given that they don't have one today?

Maybe someday a community could hold a vote and overturn a pit bull ban, but I think we're a long way from that point. Given that, I don't think 33% voting Yes in Aurora is a failure in a big picture sense, though it does stink for people in that community.

Joel, I agree with your assessment. I'm not surprised. I also think it's an interesting thought about if a city without a ban put it to a vote that it would be unlikely such a high percentage would vote in favor of a ban. But people fear change (which is the primary election approach for all incumbents).

In general, I think that it's unfortunately fairly easy to frightening people into voting to take rights away from others.